To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

26
Ethics, Self- Interest, and the Public Good
31 “ Self- Interest and
Political Integrity,” in Joel
L. Fleishman, Lance
Liebman, Mark H. Moore,
eds. Publc Duties: The
Moral Obligations of
Government Officials
( Cambridge, MA and
London: Harvard
University Press, 1981),
pp 53– 54
said to have integrity if their guiding intention is to do what is right,
even if they require effort and time to unravel each knotty choice
honestly in accordance with that criterion. If public officials are to
have integrity, they must therefore act ethically, insofar as they are
able to know what is right, in each circumstance. That is exceedingly
hard to do because doing right in politics so often conflicts with
doing well. The reason is that, at their root, many of the hardest
cases in political ethics, just as in ethics in general, are conflicts
between self- interest and the interests of others.” 31
If you have been listening to me, you will challenge me by asserting that the politi-cal
system and public office- holding also have a role for appropriate self- interest,
and I will respond by saying that indeed they do, but that the functioning of
self- interest in those two arenas is qualitatively different from that in the for- profit
or market sector. Some kinds of self- interest— one’s interest in getting elected or
re- elected, for example— are indeed also a dominant, and proper, motivation for
acting in the political system and the public sector, although such assertions of
self- interest are usually thought of as being not so much in one’s own self- interest
as in the public interest in having good people seek and win election to positions
of leadership.
What does motivate office- holders to seek office? Is it personal ambition for
the power and glory of the spotlight of public office, or is it the overriding mission
of accomplishing a change or creating something new in the public interest for the
public good? If it is dominantly “ personal ambition for power and glory,” is that
acceptable, too?
Let’s call the former self- interest or personal ego, and the latter public interest
or mission commitment. Obviously, we all have egos and we all have legitimate
self- interest. Even, perhaps especially, those who are driven primarily by a mission
commitment. But let us remember that self- interest or ego alone is NEVER a

26
Ethics, Self- Interest, and the Public Good
31 “ Self- Interest and
Political Integrity,” in Joel
L. Fleishman, Lance
Liebman, Mark H. Moore,
eds. Publc Duties: The
Moral Obligations of
Government Officials
( Cambridge, MA and
London: Harvard
University Press, 1981),
pp 53– 54
said to have integrity if their guiding intention is to do what is right,
even if they require effort and time to unravel each knotty choice
honestly in accordance with that criterion. If public officials are to
have integrity, they must therefore act ethically, insofar as they are
able to know what is right, in each circumstance. That is exceedingly
hard to do because doing right in politics so often conflicts with
doing well. The reason is that, at their root, many of the hardest
cases in political ethics, just as in ethics in general, are conflicts
between self- interest and the interests of others.” 31
If you have been listening to me, you will challenge me by asserting that the politi-cal
system and public office- holding also have a role for appropriate self- interest,
and I will respond by saying that indeed they do, but that the functioning of
self- interest in those two arenas is qualitatively different from that in the for- profit
or market sector. Some kinds of self- interest— one’s interest in getting elected or
re- elected, for example— are indeed also a dominant, and proper, motivation for
acting in the political system and the public sector, although such assertions of
self- interest are usually thought of as being not so much in one’s own self- interest
as in the public interest in having good people seek and win election to positions
of leadership.
What does motivate office- holders to seek office? Is it personal ambition for
the power and glory of the spotlight of public office, or is it the overriding mission
of accomplishing a change or creating something new in the public interest for the
public good? If it is dominantly “ personal ambition for power and glory,” is that
acceptable, too?
Let’s call the former self- interest or personal ego, and the latter public interest
or mission commitment. Obviously, we all have egos and we all have legitimate
self- interest. Even, perhaps especially, those who are driven primarily by a mission
commitment. But let us remember that self- interest or ego alone is NEVER a